I may be bold and simple and if you are a literature major you will look down on me when I say: classics kind of suck. By kind of I mean like a lot. Maybe they're were good for their time or you may think they're everlasting. I'm not goingto claim to have read even close to all of them, but of what I have read I stick to my comment. To paraphrase Futurama: "[this play] is as awful as it is brilliant". As is most classic works. Just the way I am writing now is completely out of my character. My writing always has a touch of my style, but it strongly mimics what I am reading at the time. Why do you think I am saying so many words where I don't need to? That isn't me! It's these fucking classics I have to read for class. I usually write some jumbled combination of Vonnegut, Palahniuk, Chrichton and random counter culture magazine (and a constant underlying flow of Chasse of course).
But these classics have me all BLEEEHH. I can't even write correctly. I have to stop reading this wordy aristocratic crap. Say what you will, but classic authors don't have anything on today's super writers. Writing should be about clarity with the least amount of clarity. Classic novels are long, not because they have more to say, but because they double the length of each sentence and drag nothing for pages and pages and pages. Writers have come so far. We say what we mean and we don't say it so only those who can afford private school can understand us. We speak for and to the masses, with beauty and grace [citation needed].
Here's a book to write to: http://http//www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-25th-Anniversary-Nonfiction/dp/0060006641. its called "On Writing well," and I was reading it back when I was writing well.
I assume you are writing about Tomcat Murr? I totally feel what you are saying, but I think its a little unfair to good ol' Hoffman. People who read this book in the early nineteenth century, in their native German, probably had a much easier time reading like this. Although this writing is at times a bit tough to get through for us simplistic residents of the year 2010, is the story or message or conversation Hoffman presents to us still worthwhile? Maybe there should be a third translation into "readable English."
ReplyDeleteI am not a literature major, although I do love literature, yet I definitely agree with you in a sense. I wouldn’t say classics ‘suck’ per say, but they are less enjoyable to read in our time. I too may not be the most reliable source on the matter, seeing how my repertoire of classics read is also limited, but it is because they are harder for me to feel fulfilled and take pleasure from reading. At one time, these books and example of language were amazing to society, and they did take great pleasure from them. Now though, as our language and literature has evolved and changed, we do not find the same joy. The language is hard to get through, stories less relevant to our lives and therefore less captivating. We have read and heard and watched so many stories nothing in these classics feels new or different. They do not suck; they just clash with how we live our lives now and what we have experienced. I find the same dilemma in some classic movies. I am a bit of a film buff, but many ‘classics’ have me bored stiff and I cannot get through them. I force myself because they are “classic” but it shouldn’t be that way.
ReplyDeleteI think the Futurama quote fits it perfectly. We know these books are brilliant, revolutionary at some point in time, but to us they are awful to read.
Although I love Michael Crichton, I would not consider him an example here. Jurassic Park, Next etc. are fabulous reads. He does not write about trite topics I feel. But we can disagree just fine I think.
I thought Michael Crichton was a good example of a hard read that still managed to hold my attention. That's where classics often escape me. When I say classics suck, I stand by it, but it's not because they themselves really suck--it means classics to me, with what I know in this century and what I have read and enjoyed--SUCK. Suck is always an opinion word. I think the idea or translating classics into readable english is a great idea. Because of course Hoffman was a genious to most people in 1800's Germany, but to most of us now, it's way over our head. Like when the Cohen Brothers remade the Odyssey. They tranlated a classic with a great story in its time to a great story that we understand now (as well as any of us can understand southern dialect).
ReplyDeleteAnd when it comes to films, I do belive many classics do stink, but the ones that don't are more amazing than anything now- as they can't rely on special effects to hold our attention.
Being someone who has grown up reading and re-reading M.G. Montgomery and Jane Austin "classic" writers in my opinion I can understand your frustration with the often long-winded nature of the writing. However, I find that reading is not a race. I am often frustrated by the pace we are supposed to read material. ( Really I am just frustrated with the speed with are supposed to live by.... GO GO GO!). If you sit down under a tree somewhere and read for pleasure letting all the words come together and make sense at a slower pace I think the "classic" reputation of the literature is much more understandable.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying about classic literature. It can be long-winded and a lot of times, seem to be about nothing at all. But I think a lot of what was lost in the translation to us include cultural things that are sprinkled throughout the plays that we no longer know about or it isn't as relevant so it seems unimportant. For example, if a book threw in a reference to Chocolate Rain on Youtube. If someone a few hundred years down the road were to pick that book up, the Chocolate Rain reference would make no sense to them because, while it is a popular thing in our culture, it isn't important enough for us to immortalize by telling stories about it so the knowledge of it would die out. And none of this is helped by the fact that language itself has changed and so even understanding simple concepts can be a challenge. So I wouldn't say they suck, I would say it is a different brand of reading that you kind of have to get into.
ReplyDeleteI can feel your frustration in regards to classics of the Victorian variety. I think that there's a lot to be learned from them, if you want to take the time to dredge through them (I mean, seriously, even the 2 hour movie version of Pride and Prejudice can't hold my attention, so what hope does the book have?). But I also think that not all classics are of the Victorian variety. It's unfair to assume all classics are boring and long-winded. Some will surprise you. I never thought I would like Dracula because, yuck, Victorian literature, but I definitely could not put the book down.
ReplyDeleteAlso, not all "modern" books are clear. Reading William Faulkner is enough to make you want to punch someone sometimes. Toni Morrison also has those moments. I think it's not necessarily the title classic that makes it dull--it's more the genre that's frustrating.
Its definable part genre and context of the time that causes the most frustration.
ReplyDeleteAlot of it is our constantly growing GO GO GO society. Even now, mostly in movies I'd say, since books already take enough energy expenditure, movies now are so rushed compared to just the 90s. We all make fun of 90's movies but for the most part they had mid-length, well thought out stories, plenty of character development, and like I said earlier, could rely on explosions and non-stop heartless thrill. I lost where I was going with this, fucking ADD